Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:07:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, bde@zeta.org.au, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new timeout routines Message-ID: <199709241907.NAA13477@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <3429630C.167EB0E7@whistle.com> References: <199709241651.KAA23972@pluto.plutotech.com> <3429630C.167EB0E7@whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> so what happens if I call untimeout twice? It does the right thing, since we you 'untimeout the function pointer is NULL'd out. > there is an assumption in a lot of code that untimeout is idempotent > (did I get that right?). It can be called whenever you are recovering > from unknown situations with the sure knowledge that the appropriate > timeout will be removed. According to Justin, the old only removed a timeout with the same function/arguements, which may/may not have been the right one, if multiple timeouts with the same function/arguements were created. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709241907.NAA13477>